Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
By the way, I think the Makefile might be catching the "! LaTeX Error: File"
and trying to find if there's a way to autogenerate the file, but when it
realizes it can't do this, it just says "Error 1". That's just an idea--I
don't know if it's helpful.
Original comment by amcna...@gmail.com
on 4 Nov 2010 at 10:02
Yes, that's exactly what's happening. What is confusing me is that you aren't
getting a "no rule to build IEEEtran.cls" error, but an Error 1 instead.
Make really is supposed to report these better than it is. I wonder what is
going on.
I'll see if I can make a minimal test file to trigger this.
Original comment by shiblon
on 5 Nov 2010 at 7:40
Try rcf3fcf70a99e and see if that floats your boat.
Original comment by shiblon
on 5 Nov 2010 at 8:21
That seemed to do it. By the way, will the fix work for missing graphics
files, too? I think I've occasionally run into the same error when there's a
missing graphics file that can't be autocreated.
Anyway, for the .cls case, I can confirm that the problem is fixed.
Original comment by amcna...@gmail.com
on 5 Nov 2010 at 8:31
I'm not sure whether this will affect graphics that can't be built or not. It
seems like it *shouldn't*, but there is enough complexity here, and I'm far
enough removed from using it, that I can't say for sure.
Speaking of which, this project needs another maintainer. Volunteers?
Original comment by shiblon
on 8 Nov 2010 at 5:35
If it were in Python, I just might volunteer, but make makes my sed head hurt.
I mean it makes my sad head hurt. I think.
Original comment by amcna...@gmail.com
on 8 Nov 2010 at 7:58
I'm about >< this close to starting over in Python. If only I had time to do
that instead of fix bugs ;-)
I jest, of course. Bugs are important, and I am going to fix them (someday).
But, I would *love* to brainstorm with you about how a Python version would
look, especially since you are deep into using it right now. If you have some
time for a chat sometime, let's start that project. It would be fun.
Meanwhile, I'm going to leave this bug closed. If you find it bites you again
for other missing files, let's reopen it.
Original comment by shiblon
on 11 Nov 2010 at 3:14
I think that doing it in Python sounds fun. I'm not sure where the dependency
resolution stuff would come from (it would be nice if there were a
well-maintained existing library that did this), and it would be nice to see
what should or shouldn't be borrowed from Rubber.
Original comment by amcna...@gmail.com
on 11 Nov 2010 at 5:47
Cool. Let's take this discussion out of the tracker, then, and see what we
can come up with.
Original comment by shiblon
on 11 Nov 2010 at 6:13
I just had cause to use this and found that a *ton* of errors are passing
silently, now. As a result, I'm reopening this bug and have just finished a
major code restructuring project to facilitate finding these issues.
There is no longer a "Makefile" in the source code, only a Makefile.in and a
whole bunch of supporting bits and pieces. Right now there are only a few
things factored out, and most of them are .sed files. To get the Makefile,
just run "./build".
Now, to debug things like latex error output, you can just do
./run_sed.py colorize-latex-errors.sed yourtexfile.log
And it will show you what the sed script is doing. You'll also notice that the
sed script is actually a valid script, so you could *almost* just run it
directly (it might not look quite right, but it will still give you a good idea
of what's going on).
Anyway, take a look at the output of that with a broken log file. It should
help us to zero in on problems like these.
Original comment by shiblon
on 22 Nov 2010 at 6:21
By the way, I just pushed another tip. I think this one works better. Just
update, ./build and give it a whirl.
In other excellent news, colorize-latex-errors.sed is now heavily, heavily
commented, and should therefore be more accessible to mortals. Doing this
build step from source to create the makefile allows me to do that because it
makes post-processing comments away possible. Nifty. Anyway, have a look,
give run_sed.py a whirl, and let me know what errors you aren't finding in your
log.
Original comment by shiblon
on 23 Nov 2010 at 1:03
Just to follow up with this, I believe that this issue is fully put to bed with
the completion of issue 100. As for redoing in Python, that still sounds fun,
but at least we're making progress on things as they are.
Original comment by shiblon
on 4 Jan 2011 at 3:40
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
amcna...@gmail.com
on 4 Nov 2010 at 10:00